> On 19 May 2026, at 09:08, Pete Resnick > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 18 May 2026, at 5:21, Timo Gerke wrote: > >> They need to be addressed here in >> RSWG, where we are actually defining the future of the series and >> working on the foundation (2026bis). > > To go back to my earlier point: We are not working on 2026bis in this WG; > that's in the PROCON WG. This is why I am pretty sure discussion of anything > to do with what is a STD or BCP is out of scope for this WG.
Yes I agree. I think the confusion here is that there were two proposals to gendispatch and one of them [1] was correctly redirected here (about AUTH48 timings and cluster dependencies) while the one actually being discussed here, the one about STDs and BCPs, received no feedback [2]. Jay [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/j171iAmV5nBwPzl5oLoWZz5X9pY/ [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/3N9ZygP8DMcoMxXBStud9h2di6E/ -- Jay Daley IETF Executive Director [email protected] -- rswg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
